If you look at 9:50, he suggests that we shift the way we have conversations about race in order to make them smoother and less loaded, and that will allow us to work on more significant issues regarding race, like institutional racism. He mentions unemployment rate, incarceration rate, household income, and more.

I think that this relates to the topic of stereotypes. We influence and advocate racism with stereotypes, leading not to just “private” racism, but “general” as well, and in the end that leads to institutional racism.

I thought it was especially interesting that he eventually broke it down in terms of “good” and “bad” as opposed to “racist” and “not racist.” Not to say that I don’t think the comparison he’s put in place should be challenged or broken up on a hierarchical level – “good” and “not racist” are clearly meant to be more favorable than “bad” and “racist”. rather than attempting to break up the hierarchy of the binary inherent between these two concepts, he’s attacking the very idea that there is a strict binary at all, and i think that’s incredibly powerful and not something that the construction of multiple ideologies typically allows for.

At about 6:10, Jay makes reference to the senselessness of racial constructs in America, and how the entire construct of things like slavery and Jim Crow laws hinged on perpetuating worldviews which are completely illogical and counter to how people should treat each other. This ties into the concept that hegemony (in this case, the white cultural and racial hegemony over blacks) results from ideologies that stack and interlock, but don’t necessarily have to agree with every aspect of each other. However, as was mentioned in a comment above, the persistence of racial stereotypes, long after the abolition of slavery and the onset of the civil rights movement, continues to naturalize these ideas which are, as JaySmooth implies, senseless.

At the very beginning of this video, Jay alludes to the fact that often people see their ability to avoid the topic of race as a progressive, positive step in eliminating racism. I think this is a fascinating mythology that has developed within our society. The idea that ignoring racial topics essentially makes racism disappear might be just as damaging as blatant racism. Identifying this concept as myth, not truth opens up a flow of communication and education that is necessary in understanding other races and their culture, helping to further eliminate prejudice or stereotypes that are seen as truths.

Jay breaks down approaching someone about a racist comment they made into “what you did” versus “what you are.” In interpersonal communication we are taught that telling someone what they are/do is aggressive and that you are more likely to be successful in your endeavors if you say “I felt” or “I believe.” The problem is in Jay’s approach the denotation of “you are racist” is obvious and inarguable, but the denotation of “you said something racist” is not so clear. The connotation of “you said something racist,” however, is that because someone said something racist they more than likely are racist themselves. Jay tries to dispute this by making the clean mouth despite food in your teeth metaphor but I think he may have oversimplified it. What I believe Jay misses is the fact that connotation is essentially more important than denotation and with race issues any real comment/critique will be viewed as a personal attack, despite approach.

I think the idea of having the “what you did” conversation instead of the “what you are” conversation presents a way to better identify the stereotypes about race that exist within society. By instead of merely calling someone racist, addressing their comment or action clearly identifies the problem and allows for a better understanding of the ideology behind it. In this type of conversation, as he says common ground can be more easily found. However, the hegemony that racial ideology and stereotypes have over society discourages people from having this conversation at all or causes the conversation to fail. By being able to discuss the stereotypes and the basis from which they stem, the “what you said” conversation could possibly lead change in those stereotypes.

The “dental hygiene paradigm of race discourse” JaySmooth proposes offers a means of confronting racist stereotypes while acknowledging that it is a dominant ideology ingrained in many people’s minds. I like that he recognizes that hegemony makes it difficult for people to abandon all conscious and subconscious racist leanings. He only talks about interpersonal interactions, and I might think it would be more beneficial if he provided solutions for sources of mass media. However, mass media operates in many ways mimetically, reflecting mainstream views and lifestyles. So JaySmooth’s suggestion of maintaining non-racist and non-prejudiced practice in everyday life could lead to a shift in the dominant ideology perpetuated by mass media sources.

What Jay talks about in relation to the “what you are” vs. “what you did” conversation reminds me of the article that was previously posted on this blog, “Culture poisons brain with racism”. People are not necessarily inherently bad but they can exhibit a certain amount of ignorance or lack of understanding of issues from time to time. The important thing is for a person to be more open to learning from their mistakes. These conversations should take place because people might be absorbing certain ideas and projecting them without necessarily questioning why they think them to be true.
However, there is a more institutionalized hindrance to this kind of discourse. In Jay’s other video he gives an example of how the media deals with public figures being accused of racism. Through these cases presented to us by the media we are also socialized to react to racist actions or ideas in a certain way, to take it on a personal level. The impact of the racist action of the person as a result is minimized and more importance is placed on protecting the person’s public persona and integrity rather than addressing the issue at hand. We begin to focus more on presenting an image of perfection to the people around us and on what others think about us. We are ourselves prone to simplifications so it becomes easier to put on a facade instead of working on ourselves. This is also heightened by the mass media, which itself presents simplified representations of all kinds of people, issues,and ideas.

At the very beginning of the video, Jay describes how when meeting people, they often ask him, “What are you?”, referring to the fact that he is not easily classified in terms of race on first glance. I think that by asking this question, people are “othering” Jay. By being interracial, Jay exists outside of society’s normative racial categories. However, Jay must still deal with life inside of a country whose dominant ideology still has a binary of white and non-white. I think that by asking the question of “What are you?”, the asker is acting out an instance of inferential racism. They assume that they don’t have to explain their own ethnicity but ask Jay his because he does not fit their “norm”.

He also discusses framing the “what you said” approach in a clear manner, and how it can effect other people observing the conversation in a way that engages them through a positive model. To encounter the dominant ideologies behind current social normative, consciousness must be perpetuated through practice. This practice promotes ideologies that challenge the hegemony surrounding the socialization of race, ultimately, in an effort to reestablish levels of consciousness. And it works towards a practice free of avoiding conversations of race like the plague. One of the most useful tools in approaching conversations of race then returns to implementing ” what you said” with clarity, to begin to establish new trends within the common practice of dominant ideologies perpetuated today. I like that JaySmooth approaches this issue of conversation and it’s positive influence in the public discourse, because it puts the emphasis on the ability for approaches like that, which he says people are hungry for today, to catch on and influence others to challenge and redefine the hegemony in conjunction with the socialization of race today.

In my free time I admit with little shame that I am an avid fan on most of the Real Housewives series on Bravo and I remembered an incident that happened on season 3 of the show.

The video above is a clip of the reunion episode where Kim (a white woman) is scrutinized for the treatment of her assistant (a black woman). The other ladies on the show say that the rude and demanding way that Kim speaks to her assistant is the way a slave master would be speak to her slave. Kim retorts (starts at 3:24) that “she doesn’t see color.”

In class we discussed that racial connotations are usually only viewed by the minority. I think this video is a perfect example of how the majority is privileged with not seeing the consequences of their actions and how those actions might be interpreted. I have no doubt that Kim meant nothing badly in the way she treated her assistant and had her assistant been white, I’m quite sure Kim would’ve treated her the same way.

Anyone with time should watch this reunion in its entirety. It parallels the things we’ve discussed in class so far perfectly. Especially about race, even gender.

JaySmooth focuses on finding common ground when ‘race conversations’ are critiqued. He refers to “connotations they were not aware of”, they being the person expressing offensive speech. He frames this in a way where the person is unaware of the connotations of their speech.
If JaySmooth had taken a different approach, the ‘race conversation’ could be interpreted in a totally different way. The took describes Barthes’s constructionist approach to representation. “Representation refers to the use of language and images to create meaning about the world around us”(S&C, 12). Barthes’ Model of Semiotics creates a relationship between the signifier and the signified. The sign is composed of the signifier (sound, written word or image). The signified is the concept evoked by that word or image. With reference to JaySmooth’s video, the signifier is the offensive speech and the signified is the meaning behind the speech. One could conclude that the offensive speech signifies that the person has racist or stereotypical tendencies.
If JaySmooth was interpreting representation in this manner, he may have suggested that “what they did” has a direct relationship with what they meant which reflects “who they are”. Instead, JaySmooth focuses on the signifier without concluding the signified that comes from this type of speech. This allows the defendant to explain what he intentionally signified from the offensive speech, and allowing the two people to find common ground.